So congress adds 1 trillion to the debt ceiling and Bush is against child health care expenditures?
September 5th, 2008 | by Michael |
Raptor Baby asked:
What's the difference. 1 trillion added to the total debt as possible and to protest Bush about several billion? That did not mean me at all. the question is what the difference is some nickel ago when 20 bills were falling dollar. I guess that is completely inappropriate to ask a question. The application is achieving what is the big difference by adding several billion when adding the state trillion?
What's the difference. 1 trillion added to the total debt as possible and to protest Bush about several billion? That did not mean me at all. the question is what the difference is some nickel ago when 20 bills were falling dollar. I guess that is completely inappropriate to ask a question. The application is achieving what is the big difference by adding several billion when adding the state trillion?
11 Responses to “So congress adds 1 trillion to the debt ceiling and Bush is against child health care expenditures?”
By Sway_27 on Sep 6, 2008 | Reply
so its ok to keep adding to the debt, i thought you guys were all against that
By univee on Sep 7, 2008 | Reply
The debt ceiling is to make sure they can justify the war expenditure.
Hungry children can go out and get a job.
Right?
By stupidcaucasian on Sep 9, 2008 | Reply
So the democrat controlled congress adds 1 trillion to the debt ceiling, I heard they ran on fiscal conservatism in the last election. Does this mean they lied again?
By Spartacus on Sep 12, 2008 | Reply
to be fair, the bill covered people who probably didn’t need government coverage, and it did add 61 cents to cigarettes
i kinda agree with the president on this one
i dont know what the solution is
honestly i feel like its political hysteria, and its done so republicans can say democrats want to raise taxes
and democrats are now saying bush doesnt want kids to have health care
heres where you and me get screwed
that 1 trillion dollars
thats the real problem
know what im saying brother
By hardwoodrods on Sep 13, 2008 | Reply
You do realize, that is it’s current from the bill, if signed, gives health care to children whose parents make 82,000 a year. Isn’t that slightly above the poverty line?
By Perplexed Bob on Sep 15, 2008 | Reply
This has always baffled me about the “moral majority.” They are apposed to abortion out of concern for the unborn child. Yet, they are unwilling to provide health care for a child that a low income woman has decided to bring into this world.
I just don’t get it.
By God on Sep 16, 2008 | Reply
They **** poor children. If the poor health care doesn’t do them in, they’ll just start other war.
By mutantalbino on Sep 18, 2008 | Reply
Well, I don’t see why I should pay for health care for someone else’s children. If they need a hand out they should go to a charity not the government.
If they cannot their support children they should not have them or let someone else who can care for them adopt them. They are looking at subsidizing health care for children of people making $72,000 per year!
Health care cost money. It cost too much because many don’t have insurance. The people who have insurance end up paying for those who don’t. Government is the least efficient way of providing it. We would end up in a continuous health care crisis due to budget constraints.
Insurance should be required from employers-Not provided by the government.
THIS IS ALL ABOUT BUYING VOTES. Wasn’t it Marx that said that it would be the downfall of democracy? We seem to be headed that way - fast.
By Enigma on Sep 19, 2008 | Reply
I have to agree with Spartacus on this somewhat. The healthcare bill covered families that make less than 80,000 per year. What!!! If you make that much and can’t afford insurance somethings wrong. Makes me think they put the limit that high, knowing it wouldn’t be passed. Something stinks there. As far as the war spending I am shocked that this do nothing congress are backstabbing the people that voted them in to do something about this. I bet they go home and laugh their a$$es off at how stupid we were. Welcome to the oil wars. When it comes to getting that oil money is no object and becomes all encompassing.
By WILDMAN on Sep 23, 2008 | Reply
THE DIRTY LITTLE SECRET IS CHILDREN ARE COVERED UP TO AGE 25. SINCE WHEN IS A 25 YEAR OLD A CHILD?
By FBH on Sep 23, 2008 | Reply
Come on… U.S. tax payer dollars going to children in need of medical care has no place in American strategic operations! ….hmmm… “Strategic” means strategy right?
So if I understand this right; the strategy of the Bush Administration is to deny proper heath care to the same generation of tax payers that will be paying down the debit he has created with his inability to understand what “strategic operations” actually means?
What a bloody genius!!!